New Study: Land Use the reason for Kilimanjaro's Missing ice, Not Global Warming

[salbers]

Well, if the CO2 forcing is 3.7W/m**2 per doubling, then how many watts is the solar forcing (either direct or indirect)? And why should one have an effect and not the other, in proportion to their respective forcings?

One interesting question is how much of MWP and LIA fluctuations were caused by direct changes in total solar radiation, and how much by amplifiers?

[skierinvermont]

1) Kevin Trenberth Argues the missing heat is radiating back into space, Michael Mann says it in the deep oceans...point is, we don't know...much like how our atmosphere will behave. The simple stuff and complicated stuff have to interact, which only makes the outcome even harder...its not simple as you said it was.

2) My point is...we do not need any CO2 warming to get to the levels we are at now, it was done before by solar, on both the cooling and warming ends of the spectrum...We should be warmer if CO2 is having its effect, not 2 equal Solar Maxes and 2 Equal Temperatre spikes (MWP/CWP) People saying that Solar should be giving us Big Cooling now are making a laughing stock of themselves...intracycle warming/cooling (between cycle max/min) is very minor...its the long term cycle that matters for a reason...and THAT is what shows the Lag, not the 11yr cycle. Once we get into the Weak Solar Max, 5-6 years from now, you'll see a significant drop in global temps. As for the flat-lining/cooling over the past decade, Don't hone in upon ENSO spikes/dips that inflate/deflate a trend...point being, our warming has halted, and will begin reversing. Since 2002, we have seen a slight cooling trend begin, when giving less consideration to ENSO spikes/dips, although the 2010 El Nino f**ked that up temporarily if you wana go with the calculated anomaly.

3) I hope, with the post I presented above this one, that I have at least got you thinking a bit on the issue at hand , and how we're attemping to add 2+2 to make 5. CO2 rise correlates to our rise in global temperature...thats as far as we can go!

Two very serious errors.

1) Kevin Trenberth says nothing of the sort. He is quite clear.. the heat is on earth, and we just couldn't find it (although he wrote this before Schuckmann 2009).

2) We have had a warming trend since 2002, even though ENSO has been decreasing since 2002.

[WeatherRusty]

Well, if the CO2 forcing is 3.7W/m**2 per doubling, then how many watts is the solar forcing (either direct or indirect)? And why should one have an effect and not the other, in proportion to their respective forcings?

One interesting question is how much of MWP and LIA fluctuations were caused by direct changes in total solar radiation, and how much by amplifiers?

By convention a climate forcing is described as X watts/meter squared. It is a unit of energy measured over a square meter of area. As such it is not dependent on the source of the energy. A 1C change in temperature would require a solar brightening of 22W/m^2( See Link) to produce near the same 3.7W/m^2 forcing. Forcing is not the same thing as TSI. Only a portion of the 1361W received at Earth's TOA is delivered to the surface. Also, the Sun only shines for approximately half the time over most of Earth's surface due to the diurnal cycle and the seasons. In addition, except at the zenith the energy is reduced by spreading out over a given area due to Earth's curvature.

Solar forcing since about 1750 is estimated to be in the range of 0.09W/m^2 to 0.30W/m^2 with the most likely value of 0.12W/m^2.

That small forcing played a significant role during the MWP and LIA as did volcanism. How much of a role will 3.7W/m^2 from CO2 forcing have in the future? Remember the source of the forcing does not matter and there had to have been positive feedback amplification during the MWP and LIA to move temp 0.5 to 1.0C.

* See Link

One of my favorite Blog Sites

[BethesdaWX]

Two very serious errors.

1) Kevin Trenberth says nothing of the sort. He is quite clear.. the heat is on earth, and we just couldn't find it (although he wrote this before Schuckmann 2009).

2) We have had a warming trend since 2002, even though ENSO has been decreasing since 2002.

1) There is no warming since 2002 when we apply the JAN 2011 anom, and the colder FEB 2011 anom. There is only only warming since 2002 when the 2010 El Nino spike is included ending at DEC 2010... Remove ENSO, and you have cooling. PDO was in a WARMING trend from 2002-2006. AMO has been warming the entire time. The 2010 El Nino was the strongest in the past 12 years...we still have no warming.

2) Missing the point I see?

Either this energy is not being held in the Earth system (and is just escaping to space and hence climate theory is not correct) or it is hiding and the most likely place for that would be the deep oceans (or continental ice sheets warming up and melting that we have not observed).

This paper measured/extrapolated the potential heat content going into the nearly the entire global ocean below 2000 metres [it doesn't appear they measured the Arctic bottom water but the north Atlantic does not appear to have warmed so it is likely no extra heat is going into the Arctic bottom water].

So, Table 1 in the paper shows 0.068 watts/m2 is going into the oceans below 2000 metres. Far less than the 0.8 watts/m2 Trenberth is looking for.

http://www.pmel.noaa..._Warming_v3.pdf

We also know there is no accumulation in the last 7 years in the 0-700 metre ocean – von Schuckmann 2009 found 0.77 Watts/m2 going into the 0-2000 metre ocean (although no one seems to believe these estimates since almost all of the warming they measured was in the 0-300 metre area which is contradicted by the Argo floats).

OK?

There are times when looking at the exact numbers will get you no-where. This is one of those times. You cannot be analyzing, yet state "cooling ENSO" should lead to cooling, when we just came out of one of the strongest El Nino's Ever.

You cannot continue to argue for CO2 when correlation is all we have. You really can't go any farther than that.

I can post all the graphs in the world at how Solar correlates perfectly to global temps (as it does), but that won't change the fact that its a correlation. CO2 is even more sketchy of an argument, because global temps before we emitted higher CO2 levels, as recently as 1000yrs ago, were as warm or warmer than today. Then we have periods such as the LIA...that correlate to low solar. CO2 was a non-factor in the MWP, RWP, and the larger WP's earlier on, which all correlated to solar activity. Sorry, no difference here.

[Clifford]

1) There is no warming since 2002 when we apply the JAN 2011 anom, and the colder FEB 2011 anom. There is only only warming since 2002 when the 2010 El Nino spike is included ending at DEC 2010... Remove ENSO, and you have cooling. PDO was in a WARMING trend from 2002-2006. AMO has been warming the entire time. The 2010 El Nino was the strongest in the past 12 years...we still have no warming.

2) Missing the point I see?

Either this energy is not being held in the Earth system (and is just escaping to space and hence climate theory is not correct) or it is hiding and the most likely place for that would be the deep oceans (or continental ice sheets warming up and melting that we have not observed).

This paper measured/extrapolated the potential heat content going into the nearly the entire global ocean below 2000 metres [it doesn't appear they measured the Arctic bottom water but the north Atlantic does not appear to have warmed so it is likely no extra heat is going into the Arctic bottom water].

So, Table 1 in the paper shows 0.068 watts/m2 is going into the oceans below 2000 metres. Far less than the 0.8 watts/m2 Trenberth is looking for.

http://www.pmel.noaa..._Warming_v3.pdf

We also know there is no accumulation in the last 7 years in the 0-700 metre ocean – von Schuckmann 2009 found 0.77 Watts/m2 going into the 0-2000 metre ocean (although no one seems to believe these estimates since almost all of the warming they measured was in the 0-300 metre area which is contradicted by the Argo floats).

OK?

There are times when looking at the exact numbers will get you no-where. This is one of those times. You cannot be analyzing, yet state "cooling ENSO" should lead to cooling, when we just came out of one of the strongest El Nino's Ever.

You cannot continue to argue for CO2 when correlation is all we have. You really can't go any farther than that.

I can post all the graphs in the world at how Solar correlates perfectly to global temps (as it does), but that won't change the fact that its a correlation. CO2 is even more sketchy of an argument, because global temps before we emitted higher CO2 levels, as recently as 1000yrs ago, were as warm or warmer than today. Then we have periods such as the LIA...that correlate to low solar. CO2 was a non-factor in the MWP, RWP, and the larger WP's earlier on, which all correlated to solar activity. Sorry, no difference here.

NOAA seems to be tinkering with their website and various links this weekend. Hopefully they'll be back up later.

The oceans have a most extraordinary temperature gradient (thermocline)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermocline

When I first saw the thermocline, I thought it was a basic energy diffusion problem.

But, it actually is an energy minimum.

The maximum density of fresh water is about 4°C.

Sea water probably has the maximum density near 0°C.

That means that cold water will tend to sink.

Warm water will tend to float towards the surface.

And... warming water at depth a very small amount is like lifting a very heavy column of water by the amount of the thermal expansion.

All of this forces warm water to the surface where it can be radiated away, as well as driving the deep sea ocean currents bringing cold water from the poles to the tropics.

The Atlantic, and other smaller bodies of water are often slightly warmer than the Pacific, but the same principles apply.

Some good images of sea temperatures by depth are found here:

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/OC5/WOA09F/woa09f.pl?parameter=t

Anyway, this thermocline causes the majority of the temperature change in the ocean to be restricted to the top 500-1000m.

[tacoman25]

Both terms are useful and both are acceptable but they are not exactly interchangeable terms. Humanity's activities can cause a global warming. That warming will change climate as reflected by it's many weather elements other than temperature..

And then of course there's climate change that occurs without human influence...

[ORH_wxman]

And then of course there's climate change that occurs without human influence...

Amazing that could ever happen!

How could the glaciers of the arctic lose most of their length before 1920? Impossible!

Coming out of the LIA has caused a lot of hyperbole statements. It must ALL be man-made. No way anything coming out of the LIA could be "natural". I wonder how much of the LIA was man made too.

[WeatherRusty]

Amazing that could ever happen!

How could the glaciers of the arctic lose most of their length before 1920? Impossible!

Coming out of the LIA has caused a lot of hyperbole statements. It must ALL be man-made. No way anything coming out of the LIA could be "natural". I wonder how much of the LIA was man made too.

It is very difficult to take you seriously on this topic when you make statements like that. You know darn right well that the science does not say anything of the sort you imply.

[BethesdaWX]

It is very difficult to take you seriously on this topic when you make statements like that. You know darn right well that the science does not say anything of the sort you imply.

We had the most rapid warming after the LIA. Temps.....still cold at the time of industrial revolution, Flatlined, until 1915 or so, which happened to coincide with the Dalton Minimum. Globe was frigid.

When we hit the Modern Max, temps rose in sync.

Not hard to pinpoint a cause. Sunpot # is less important than MF

[ORH_wxman]

It is very difficult to take you seriously on this topic when you make statements like that. You know darn right well that the science does not say anything of the sort you imply.

Its actually very difficult to take you seriously when 99% of your posts act like we live in a science test tube. You are still one of the few that says global temps aren't affected by ocean cycles.

[WeatherRusty]

Its actually very difficult to take you seriously when 99% of your posts act like we live in a science test tube. You are still one of the few that says global temps aren't affected by ocean cycles.

No, what I have said is that ocean cycles do not affect the outcome of the long term warming trend. Since they neither add nor subtract energy being exchanged by the system. They are a function of climate, not a driver. On average the temp swings created by coupled atmosphere/ocean cycles zero out over time. They are examples of ocillatory internal variability.

[LakeEffectKing]

No, what I have said is that ocean cycles do not affect the outcome of the long term warming trend. Since they neither add nor subtract energy being exchanged by the system. They are a function of climate, not a driver. On average the temp swings created by coupled atmosphere/ocean cycles zero out over time. They are examples of ocillatory internal variability.

....which is a hypothesis of many skeptics as to the recent warming.

[k***]

I love how models are bashed when they support AGW, but the modeled effects of land use are taken verbatim when they are useful to the skeptical position.

[ORH_wxman]

No, what I have said is that ocean cycles do not affect the outcome of the long term warming trend. Since they neither add nor subtract energy being exchanged by the system. They are a function of climate, not a driver. On average the temp swings created by coupled atmosphere/ocean cycles zero out over time. They are examples of ocillatory internal variability.

You went on record back at eastern saying you thought the ocean cycles were not responsible for any temperature flat lining or cooling from 1940s-1970s. You claimed it was aerosols.

[BethesdaWX]

No, what I have said is that ocean cycles do not affect the outcome of the long term warming trend. Since they neither add nor subtract energy being exchanged by the system. They are a function of climate, not a driver. On average the temp swings created by coupled atmosphere/ocean cycles zero out over time. They are examples of ocillatory internal variability.

They have added Significantly to the warming in the past 30yrs, both being in the Warm Phase +PDO/+AMO....yet we STILL fall out of the IPCC confidence..completely fall out.

You constantly state that CO2 warming will "overwhelm" this/that...when we do not even know if CO2 has caused todays warming, or the significance of such. Even if it has, saying it will change ENSO/PDO/AMO/SOlar/MagF and their effects is more hypothesis.

What you state "will" happen...is simple hypothesis, what don't you understand about that? Go go around acting like we can go around predicting the climate based on formulas you read in the 1970's...some of which we know are false.

All you can say right now is this:

-Rising CO2 in the 20th/21st century has correlated to the warming trend.

-CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere that could be responsible for part or most of the warming seen over the timespan

You can also say:

-Solar activity in the Magnetic Flux/10BE concentrations correlates to the warming trend

-Solar activity is a driver that could be responsible for part or most of the warming trend.

There is no proof of CO2 warming the planet, we hypothesize based on correlation...but need to know that natural factors have been aligned warm for a long time, and the trend correlates well to that too.

[BethesdaWX]

I love how models are bashed when they support AGW, but the modeled effects of land use are taken verbatim when they are useful to the skeptical position.

No, I bash the people who attempt to use model results as "evidence".

When have you seen me post "model predictions" of anything? I don't care if the model agrees with my views, I don't post them.

I could post models supporting my position too.

[WeatherRusty]

You went on record back at eastern saying you thought the ocean cycles were not responsible for any temperature flat lining or cooling from 1940s-1970s. You claimed it was aerosols.

Yes, because aerosols are regarded as the most likely cause for most of that pause in the warming. Did aerosoles act alone? Nothing is ever acting in total isolation. The climate is moved to change in a kind of battle between various competing factors working on different time scales and differing relative strengths. This is what is known in science as a dynamic equilibrium. Currently greenhouse warming, primarilly a result of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration, is the dominating force over time frames lengthy enough to cancel out natural variability.

[WeatherRusty]

They have added Significantly to the warming in the past 30yrs, both being in the Warm Phase +PDO/+AMO....yet we STILL fall out of the IPCC confidence..completely fall out.

You constantly state that CO2 warming will "overwhelm" this/that...when we do not even know if CO2 has caused todays warming, or the significance of such. Even if it has, saying it will change ENSO/PDO/AMO/SOlar/MagF and their effects is more hypothesis.

What you state "will" happen...is simple hypothesis, what don't you understand about that? Go go around acting like we can go around predicting the climate based on formulas you read in the 1970's...some of which we know are false.

All you can say right now is this:

-Rising CO2 in the 20th/21st century has correlated to the warming trend.

-CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere that could be responsible for part or most of the warming seen over the timespan

You can also say:

-Solar activity in the Magnetic Flux/10BE concentrations correlates to the warming trend

-Solar activity is a driver that could be responsible for part or most of the warming trend.

There is no proof of CO2 warming the planet, we hypothesize based on correlation...but need to know that natural factors have been aligned warm for a long time, and the trend correlates well to that too.

We don't hypothesize based on correlation, you do. The science is steeped in physics. The greenhouse effect is real. Adding CO2 and CH4 to the atmosphere will enhance that greenhouse effect. The toposphere will warm as a result. I won't bore you with the details again.

[Clifford]

No, I bash the people who attempt to use model results as "evidence".

When have you seen me post "model predictions" of anything? I don't care if the model agrees with my views, I don't post them.

I could post models supporting my position too.

In reality...

Just about everything in this whole climate debate is the output of some computer model/calculation.

Take the satellite temperatures.

With overlapping data ranges.

Varying sampling times.

Changing satellite elevations.

Calibrations.

Updating old satellites with "new and improved".

One would think that one could just measure sea ice. But... it isn't one sheet... thus one tends to measure concentration at the edges, rather than true area. Again, there is some mapping routine that is reading the raw input from the satellites and converting it to numbers that we can read.

And, historical reconstructions are more model and theory than measurement.

We look at Deuterium and ¹⁸O concentrations in ice as a proxy for temperature.

We have hand written notes about sunspots dating back 400 years. But, no real connection between those and TSI, especially during periods unlike those that we've experienced in the last few decades. And even with TSI, there is enough drift in the satellite recording equipment that nobody is quite sure on how to connect the 30 years or so worth of records together down to an accuracy of greater than 0.01% per decade.

And, certainly a lot of us like to look at today's or next week's weather forecast. In fact I've seen some people report on predicted temperatures as if they were actual temperatures.

The problem comes with jumping from models of things like daily weather (which can be verified) to models of weather over the next couple of decades or centuries. Something that we would like... however, they are problematic to say the least. First of all, the models are extremely hard to verify as we are talking about events that may happen long after the authors are planted... and growing daises.

Understanding palaeoclimatology will help some, but even so, we will be modelling the effect of various proxies on local and global climates.

Raw Data is nice... but with things like the Jason-2 sea level, I'd just like to know if the sea level is going up or down, which apparently is more complicated than it sounds.

[BethesdaWX]

. The science is steeped in physics. The greenhouse effect is real. Adding CO2 and CH4 to the atmosphere will enhance that greenhouse effect. The toposphere will warm as a result. I won't bore you with the details again.

whaaaaa? I agree with everything you just stated.

I've only debated the significance of such hypothesis. Its pretty obvious already that we've overestimated the climate sensitivity to increased CO2 emissions. This based upon us falling out of the IPCC confidence, with all drivers aligned warm for so long...we fall out. We didn't need CO2 warming to reach todays GTA.

Hypothesis = Educated Guess.

Using physics, assuming we know everything about the climate, is useless. Your formula on Solar is underestimating, as we can infer based on the difference between the LIA and MWP, most likely in between 1-2C somewhere.

You stated, at equilibrium, CO2 increase has warmed us about 0.6C since 1750. Meaning, you attribute 0.2C to nautral effects? MWP temps were not CO2 related.

So, physics must have changed since then.

[k***]

No, I bash the people who attempt to use model results as "evidence".

When have you seen me post "model predictions" of anything? I don't care if the model agrees with my views, I don't post them.

I could post models supporting my position too.

did i say anything about you?

since you called yourself out...

[BethesdaWX]

did i say anything about you?

since you called yourself out...

You were obviously talking about AGW skeptics. Guess what I am?

[salbers]

whaaaaa? I agree with everything you just stated.

I've only debated the significance of such hypothesis. Its pretty obvious already that we've overestimated the climate sensitivity to increased CO2 emissions. This based upon us falling out of the IPCC confidence, with all drivers aligned warm for so long...we fall out. We didn't need CO2 warming to reach todays GTA.

Hypothesis = Educated Guess.

Using physics, assuming we know everything about the climate, is useless. Your formula on Solar is underestimating, as we can infer based on the difference between the LIA and MWP, most likely in between 1-2C somewhere.

You stated, at equilibrium, CO2 increase has warmed us about 0.6C since 1750. Meaning, you attribute 0.2C to nautral effects? MWP temps were not CO2 related.

So, physics must have changed since then.

Maybe we've simply underestimated the masking effect of aerosols.

Meanwhile, a reminder that I think the title of this thread should be changed since the paper only mentions local land use / circulation effects along the slope of Kilimanjaro, not at the summit where the ice is.

[BethesdaWX]

Maybe we've simply underestimated the masking effect of aerosols.

Meanwhile, a reminder that I think the title of this thread should be changed since the paper only mentions local land use / circulation effects along the slope of Kilimanjaro, not at the summit where the ice is.

This thread went off topic anyway.

Maybe we have, or maybe we haven't..we don't know the significance of aerosols either.

This is just 1 study of many, all some to different conclusions